Orthodox "Atonement" theories; why did Jesus have to die?

[WetCatechumen]

How do you interpret this?[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 2:17[/BIBLEDRB]

God pronounced the rule and consequence ahead of time, as indicated by searn77 and accepted by WetCatechumen. One could argue that Adam chose death or that he chose disobedience. Regardless, Adam knew the consequence of his action beforehand.

In fairness to the kind sir, I have heard the theory that Satan placed the tree in the garden. Hence, he was the creator of mortal death for mankind. Hence, that would merely be God warning the Man not to fall for Satan’s snare.

 

[SonCatcher]

In fairness to the kind sir, I have heard the theory that Satan placed the tree in the garden. Hence, he was the creator of mortal death for mankind. Hence, that would merely be God warning the Man not to fall for Satan’s snare.

What do the origin and placement of the tree have to do with the rule to not touch it or the consequence of death?

 

[WetCatechumen]

What do the origin and placement of the tree have to do with the rule to not touch it or the consequence of death?

It would mean that God did not create the tree or its penalty. Therefore, it would not be a penalty that God established for eating the fruit.

 

[Magdalena09]

I am by NO means a theologians, but the atonement is a particularly interesting and mind boggling subject that I have been learning/studying a little, so I read this thread.

1. I think you have to be really careful with the notion of penal substitution because it has become so skewed, that most people think of the protestant version of it when they hear “penal substitution”… for instance, almost all protestants I know use this wording: “God poured out His wrath on Jesus on the Cross” or “Jesus [literally] took the punishment we deserved so that we didn’t have to”. As far as I know, this is neither Biblical nor acceptable theology given what we know about the Trinity (you cannot completely sever the Father from the Son) and our just God. But again, this is to the best of my knowledge, so I could be wrong. I think this protestant version of penal substitution has seeped into some American Catholic theology; I know I have seen it in several places from otherwise orthodox Catholics.
2. Can Satan create anything? I thought creation was an attribute solely of our Divine God. My understanding was more that Satan can only disrupt or misuse what has already been created. Again, I could be wrong.

 

[josephdaniel29]

How do you interpret this?[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 2:17[/BIBLEDRB]

God pronounced the rule and consequence ahead of time, as indicated by searn77 and accepted by WetCatechumen. One could argue that Adam chose death or that he chose disobedience. Regardless, Adam knew the consequence of his action beforehand.

If I tell you, “if you step in front of that train you will die”; does that mean if you go ahead and step in front of that train that I killed you? God said “the day that you eat from it you will surely die” not “surely I will kill you.” Adam chose to cut himself off from the only source of life, the natural result of that is he died. That doesn’t mean it was a “punishment” from God.

 

[SonCatcher]

If I tell you, “if you step in front of that train you will die”; does that mean if you go ahead and step in front of that train that I killed you? God said “the day that you eat from it you will surely die” not “surely I will kill you.” Adam chose to cut himself off from the only source of life, the natural result of that is he died. That doesn’t mean it was a “punishment” from God.

You mean that the statement was prophetic as opposed to legislative, correct?

 

[SonCatcher]

It would mean that God did not create the tree or its penalty. Therefore, it would not be a penalty that God established for eating the fruit.

If the tree had existence, it was part of Creation. Satan can corrupt but he cannot create.

 

[josephdaniel29]

You mean that the statement was prophetic as opposed to legislative, correct?

It was a warning. It was God saying, “if you cut yourself off from Me, the only source of life, then surely you will die.”

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Here is what St Gregory the Theologian had to say about the “ransom.”

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

Sorry to be late in responding!

In actual fact, although St Gregory is deeply venerated in the East, his comments on ransom are NOT the preferred teaching in Orthodoxy (only by some).

The mainstream Orthodox teaching based on other Greek Fathers (and also Eastern Catholic tradition) sees Christ offering Himself as a ransom for us and confronting the devil in order to crush him.

The incarnate Son of God proferred Himself in exchange for the human beings Satan held in his grip. For the devil, the attraction of the ransom rendered by Christ was that He was pure, virgin-born and a miracle-worker - Christ was a much more attractive “captive” than we sinners!

The devil then focused on the perfect Humanity of Christ and accepted the “exchange.” In accepting the ransom offered, the devil took the “bait.” Satan overreached himself and was crushed. The devil did not consider that accepting the ransom would involve him trying to keep God Himself in his control. “Hell received a body and encountered God; it received mortal dust and met heaven face to face” (St John Chrysostom’s paschal sermon). Through Christ’s ransom, humanity is purchased from tyrannical bondage - in that ransom, the devil lost both humanity and the ransom Himself. Christ is victor over the devil.

In addition, we should note the important place of the Resurrection in Orthodox Soteriology. Following St Paul who said that if Christ had not risen, we are still in our sins and our faith is in vain, the Orthodox Catholic Church celebrates the Resurrection more than Western Christians. Eternal life, communion with God, Divinization and victory over evil is only completely achieved in the Resurrection of Christ. For the Orthodox Catholic Church, Good Friday is the necessary step of salvation, but Easter is the great day in which salvation is assured and achieved.

Alex

 

[fhansen]

In fairness to the kind sir, I have heard the theory that Satan placed the tree in the garden. Hence, he was the creator of mortal death for mankind. Hence, that would merely be God warning the Man not to fall for Satan’s snare.

Seems to me that only God could change the body from immortal to mortal-only God has the ultimate power over life and death. We choose life or death by our actions.

The wages or consequences of sin is to lose ones entitlement to life. We’ve been cast into a world where death is our lot-but it’s pending; it’s not immediate. Here we can be redeemed. Here we have a reprieve, so to speak, to learn of the perfection of God’s wisdom- of His will-and choose life-choose Him.

 

[pinctor]

In addition, we should note the important place of the Resurrection in Orthodox Soteriology. Following St Paul who said that if Christ had not risen, we are still in our sins and our faith is in vain, the Orthodox Catholic Church celebrates the Resurrection more than Western Christians. Eternal life, communion with God, Divinization and victory over evil is only completely achieved in the Resurrection of Christ. For the Orthodox Catholic Church, Good Friday is the necessary step of salvation, but Easter is the great day in which salvation is assured and achieved.

Alex

In other words, Jesus died so that He would rise again, taking us with Him if we so want. This is a thought that is always with me at Mass, while reciting the Sorrowful Mysteries, and meditating on the Way of The Cross.

 

[josephdaniel29]

In other words, Jesus died so that He would rise again, taking us with Him if we so want. This is a thought that is always with me at Mass, while reciting the Sorrowful Mysteries, and meditating on the Way of The Cross.

You may enjoy this quote from Melito of Sardis’ homily On the Passover. He was a second century bishop in Anatolia. Remeber, passover was the term early Christians used for the feast of the Resurrection and is still used today in the Eastern Christian world.

                                      **The Final Triumph of Christ**

But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried,

he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed.

Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.

Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand.

This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

Link

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In other words, Jesus died so that He would rise again, taking us with Him if we so want. This is a thought that is always with me at Mass, while reciting the Sorrowful Mysteries, and meditating on the Way of The Cross.

Excellent and yes indeed! It is just that for the Eastern Churches, the Resurrection is what I believe is a tremendous devotional focus. The brightness of the icons of the Resurrection, the light etc. all this underlines the Resurrection (sometimes Western Christians have accused the East of downplaying the Crucifixion as a result).

There are three such main devotional emphases in the Eastern Church - the Resurrection of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of God.

In addition, while the West prays to “God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit” - the Byzantine East will, more often than not, address all Three Persons of the Divine Trinity which is what Fr. Karl Rahner SJ once referred to as a “social conception of the Deity.” This “social conception” of the East is also reflected in the veneration of all Angels and Saints, prayer for the faithful departed, and an emphasis on the public, liturgical prayer for all members of the Church on earth.

This last aspect is one that struck me greatly in terms of the devotional life of both East and West.

It seems to me that Western devotional life among the laity has tended to be based on prayers reflecting private revelations and paraliturgical devotions for the most part (and I could be totally wrong). Certainly, private revelations have been elevated to the liturgical life of the Western Church such as Divine Mercy Sunday, Our Lady of Fatima and the like.

In the East, the devotional life of the laity is the same as that of monastics, priests and bishops. The emphasis is on the psalter, the daily office, the various liturgical/devotional prayers such as akathists, canons and supplicatory services which are served regularly by priests in church and even the Jesus Prayer is an “ecclesial prayer” which can be used to replace the office and the psalter and is used as an integral part of the Church’s liturgical life.

Alex

 

[pinctor]

Thank you Josephdaniel29 for the magnificent Melito of Sardis homily, and Alexander Roman for your thoughts and encouragement

 

[Iakobos]

That’s a bunch of baloney. There’s not a single verse in Scripture that says God inflicted death upon us as a punishment for Adam’s sin.

I agree. God removed Adam and Eve from the Garden not as a punishment/Divine Justice for their sin. They were removed, out of mercy, to protect them from eating from the Tree of Life and living in a corrupt state of being forever. Could you imagine what it would be like to live eternally under death, always dying, without union, energeia,life of God? Death is a natural consequence when a person rejects life, the energeia of God, etc. They chose to persue Theosis by their own means and understanding.

 

[fhansen]

Could you imagine what it would be like to live eternally under death, always dying, without union, energeia,life of God?

Sort of-it’s called hell-a place where everyone presumably may still be trying to pursue Theosis apart from God, by their own means and understanding. I think of life here as a reprieve from that possible ultimate justice, where we have time to decide for sure which way we’ll choose, given the experience or knowledge of both good (that which is from God) and evil (that which opposes itself to God), like Prodigals returning home.

In any case your point helps in clarifying that aspect of the account of the fall, IMO.

 

[Iakobos]

Sort of-it’s called hell-a place where everyone presumably may still be trying to pursue Theosis apart from God, by their own means and understanding. I think of life here as a reprieve from that possible ultimate justice, where we have time to decide for sure which way we’ll choose, given the experience or knowledge of both good (that which is from God) and evil (that which opposes itself to God), like Prodigals returning home.

In any case your point helps in clarifying that aspect of the account of the fall, IMO.

In a sense I agree with you. Both Heaven and Hell can be and is experienced now. I don’t see Hell as punishment, but a natural consequence of hating God. Those who have been segregated from the “saints” are still in the full presence of God, the difference is that they hate God, His way to theosis, etc., and this causes torment within them as the Love of God, the Consuming fire of God, the energy of God is given to them freely but they reject and fight against it, thus they burn and are tormented by His love. While those who accept His ways, His love, etc., rejoice, have joy, reveal in the love of God which we can experience now, a taste of Heaven.

 

[fhansen]

In a sense I agree with you. Both Heaven and Hell can be and is experienced now. I don’t see Hell as punishment, but a natural consequence of hating God. Those who have been segregated from the “saints” are still in the full presence of God, the difference is that they hate God, His way to theosis, etc., and this causes torment within them as the Love of God, the Consuming fire of God, the energy of God is given to them freely but they reject and fight against it, thus they burn and are tormented by His love. While those who accept His ways, His love, etc., rejoice, have joy, reveal in the love of God which we can experience now, a taste of Heaven.

Well, I would never disagree with the truth that the choice to reject God is it’s own punishment.

 

[Sufjon]

In Eastern theology, Christ’s death on the Cross was not meant to satisfy some sort of Divine Justice, rather it was to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall.

I didn’t know that this was what the Orthodox believed. It makes good sense.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see the difference in East or West except in “understanding” the theology is the same. I don’t see where the serpent places the Tree in the garden. I see God gave man Free-WIll.

This is how that went.

The tree is placed in Heaven “NOW today” as per Revelations, and the only way to attain the Tree? Is to follow the commandments placed in real time by God. The Tree of Life is eternal life. To reach this Tree is to pick up your cross and follow Jesus Christ.

What does that have to do with “Original Sin and Death”. And the consequence of it placed on man and women by God?

In Genesis 15:16-17 You are free to eat from any of the trees in the Garden 17 Except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and bad. From that Tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat of from it, you will surely be doomed to die.

So first of all where does the Bibes state anywhere the serpent places the Tree in the garden? The fact that the serpent made its way in Gods Garden, only indicates that the serpent can make it into anywhere. Is that not the point? He’s in Gods garden? The fact that they were tempted and ate the fruit only shows God gave them Free-Will. They could have said NO.

Genesis 3:3 We shall not eat it or even touch it {Eve states}

Genesis 3:6 The woman said the fruit was good for food and plaeasing to the eye. {By now we have all kinds of folly going on. How does she know its good food?} Let alone were talking about how pretty the fruit is? Temptation sets in. They eat the fruit

So Adam blames Eve, Eve states “The serpent tricked me into it” nobody repents, there are no I’m sorrys, can we have another chance we were wrong…NOTHING! Everyone is running around naked and ashamed and blaming each other and the serprent??? Amazing isn’t it? Sounds about like today.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said: Man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad. Therefore he must not be allowed to put out his hand, to take from the Tree of Life also, and thus eat from it and live forever.

He can’t live forever because now the Original Sin exists and has to resolved which mans death is resolved by Christ. Why would God want Billions that running around?

Genesis 3:19 Untill you return to the ground you were taken. Now its "Dust to Dust, no eternal life on the table. So the alternaltive of eternal life is gone, and back on the table is the Dust.

So death in Dust to Dust is now placed on man. Since before this the opportunity to eat of the Tree of Life was possible it was in the garden. Adam and Eve were there a hot minute and chose The Tree on Knowledge? Of Good and bad because it looked eatable and pretty?

And istead of listening to God? Who do they listen to a Serpent which God already gave man dominion over all the animals. SO by all means lets listen to the serpent? Instead of saying “What a minute” I’m gonna check with God!

So its takes Jesus Christ, God himself to come back into time and show the correct path for man. By saying listen to what I say, and do just as I do. And of course Jesus defeats the mistakes of man being condemned with His own blood. And not falling prey to temptation. He doesn’t stop Orignal Sin, He redeems man in his present state and leaves the opportunity and the example of how to defeat Original Sin as he does.

Also before the fruit was eaten by Adam and Eve, man and woman are equal. Living in communion. After the fruit, total chaos enters the picture and I imagine sexual immorality.

Gos Bless, Gary